From: Rome consensus conference - statement; human papilloma virus diseases in males
Grading | Definitions |
---|---|
1++ | High quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a very low risk of bias |
1+ | Well conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a low risk of bias |
1– | Meta-analyses, systematic reviews or RCTs, or RCTs with a high risk of bias |
2++ | High quality systematic reviews of case–control or cohort studies or high quality case–control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a high probability that the relationship is causal |
2+ | Well conducted case–control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal |
2– | Case–control or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal |
3 | NonÂanalytic studies, eg case reports, case series |
4 | Expert opinion |